A software product line infrastructure is one where a set of common software components is enhanced with a set of case-specific ones to build product variants based on technical, industry or user requirements. Implementing such an infrastructure is more expensive in the short run but gives a better return on investment in the long run – especially as your product portfolio increases.

One of the Principles of the Agile Manifesto states that ‘Simplicity – maximising the amount of work not done – is essential’. This principle has effectively been simplified as ‘Over-engineering is wrong’.

While trying to explain the tension created by trying to do Product Lines and Agile at the same time, I had a personal epiphany. I’m sure other have had the same thought but it seemed new to me – it’s impossible to do just the right amount of work in Agile. We either do too little, and accumulate debt in the process – or too much work, leading to over-engineering. I think this must be because we don’t have the information to let us know which we are doing, i.e. the only way of avoiding either mistake is to have knowledge of future events.

How I feel about it now is that over-engineering is the price we pay to avoid accumulating debt and vice versa. We shouldn’t feel too badly about either because we must be doing one or the other in any given case.

What do you think? Can you ever do ‘just the right amount of work’ in Agile?

In addition to everything else on my plate, I’ve been in stealth mode for the past few months with a concept called Innovation Island.

Universities patent technologies all the time arising from their research activities. Technology Transfer Offices help to spin out campus companies based on these technologies and/or license the technology out to third parties.

Inevitably, more patents come in to the system than can be spun or licensed out the other end. Many of the patents that miss the cut in their first year never make it at all because newer patents come along and continue to displace them. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with the patents that don’t make it but there could be factors that make them more difficult to commercialise such as: an unwillingness of the inventor to become an entrepreneur in a campus company; or a lack of understanding of the applicable markets on behalf of the University. So these patents moulder in drawers until they expire and all the public money used to carry out the research and register the patent goes to waste (I’m simplifying here).

Innovation Island aims to stop this waste of public funds and to create jobs and generate economic activity by getting these technologies licensed out.

We are currently in private alpha but intend shortly to announce our first wave of patents available to license from an Irish University and hope to sign up others shortly.

We will have assessed the Commercialisation potential of the patented technologies on offer and ensured that they are ready to be licenced out.

We will then match the technologies to suitably qualified individuals or companies and will give them an exclusive, non-commercial Exploratory licence for a nominal sum so that they can determine how best to commercialise the patented technology.

The patent owner will provide information and support during the Exploratory licence and Innovation Island will provide access to other services and service providers including funding, mentoring, non-executives, consultants, lawyers and accountants.

At the end of the Exploratory licence period, a Commercial Licence can be negotiated with the patent owner.